Pupil Premium fund and ex school trips

[Rebornagain]

After some guidance around the pupil premium fund and ex

I have a friend who is currently in a heated debate with the ex over school trip payments.

The ex is entitled to the pupil premium.

So for example if a school trip costs 450 , 150 is paid by the pupil premium fund.

Should the 50/50 be split at the cost of 300 or the cost of the total trip?

The cost of whatever is payable. Of course it isn't reasonable to have one pay 225 and the other 75 whilst school contribute 150

Suppose depends on the financial situation of both parents. Obviously the parent qualifying for the pupil premium has lower income. If I could afford it Id split 50:50 however if it was a struggle for the lower income parent Id ask other parents nicely if they could pay £200

If the ex is entitled to PP+ due to low income? Who is the main resident parent? Does the ex pay maintenance?

There are too many variables that impact the answer.

other parents I mean the ex

The ex isn’t entitled to PP, the school is on behalf of the child. Both parents should be paying an equal share.

PP is a payment for an individual pupil to catch up with their learning. If they don’t need to catch up, the money can be used for activities that enhance the breadth of learning. I’m assuming this trip does this. What else does the child get from the PP money to improve their educational attainment? This seems a random way to spend pp money as the s hooks knows the parents are in a difficult position. And no trip costing this amount of money would ever be mandatory. What it is?

If you're saying the ex is entitled to the pupil premium, I am assuming that's due to their individual circumstances? So low/no income/disability or something similar, which presumably doesn't apply to the other parent.

If that's the case then no, I'd say the remaining amount shouldn't be split 50/50 as that defies the point of the original assistance. The total should be split 50/50 with the pupil premium amount coming off the ex's half.

But surely if the other parent does not qualify for pupil premium funding the child won't receive it.

If the pupil gets the funding based on the resident parent low income then it comes off the resident parents share because they are on a low income.

However if they both broke 50:50 or perhaps despite the premium the child can't go because they can't afford it full stop.

I'm confused

Pupil premium is received by the school and isn't usually allocated to a specific item for a specific child

Areyou sure you're using the right term?

Hmmmm.

Pupil Premium is to boost the learning of children who have been entitled to free school meals at any point over the previous 6 years.

It doesn't mean the ex is on a low income NOW. Just that at some point over the previous 6 years they were.

However as it is the ex which entitles the child to PP I think the fair solution is to take the PP funding off the ex's half.

Remember that these trips are an optional extra.

If ex is eligible to claim free school meals and pupil premium for their child, then they are likely to be on a desperately low income (either unemployed or very few hours per week); it is possible that this is a historic situation and they are doing better now.

For most families in this situation, they would not be able to produce £150 and their children would not be able to go (without additional support from the school).

If ex can't afford the £150, there is likely to be nothing stopping them from refusing to pay at all, and the child doesn't go (or your friend has to pay the full amount).

I'd be trying to negotiate carefully if I were your friend. They may end up with nothing.

I would say it depends on financial situations. If paying half would leave the ex unable to pay the bills on a suitable home to have their child when the other parent can easily afford it then obviously the best thing for the children is for the other parent to pay more. I think in these cases you have to think about what is best for the child rather than getting an ex to pay on principal.

If a parent is getting a trip subsided due to being on a low income then the other parent should pay half of the remaining payment.

Eg if the trip was originally £400 but has been reduced to £300 then both parents should pay £150 - why would one parent pay more than this.

wonderfulyou because one parent may have a significantly lower income than the other?

Although we can't tell if that is the case or not from the OP

@Headteacher415
No trip costing this amount of money is mandatory. It’s clearly enrichment which might be beneficial. Schools often have hardship funds which can be used but this seems a lot of money and the trip is not likely to be part of the curriculum. So this seems wrong. Many many PP parents who are on very low incomes could never afford this.

Schools are meant to look at the needs of individual pp children and not have blanket policies. However if the parents can now afford it. It might be better not to row over it. Be pleased they are no longer so hard up that they can actually pay for an extra activity. I would divvy it up based on take home salary.

No parent is entitled to pupil premium. It’s a payment to the school. Both parents need to behave and work out how to coparent their child

I’d say:
Cost of £450 trip split in half gives £225. The £150 pp comes off the qualifying parents half, who then pays £75. Other one pays the full £225.

PP is allocated to the school for the PP child. It's not allocated to a parent.
If the school chooses to offer the PP child a discount, the balance payment should be divided however each parent normally contributes.

E.g Assuming mum and dad always split school trip payments 50/50, if trip costs £100 and PP 'discount' is £50, each parent pays £25.

If Mum and Dad normally split school trip payments 60 (Mum) and 40 (Dad), mum would pay £30 and Dad £20.

@AllThatFancyPaintsAsFair

I'm confused

Pupil premium is received by the school and isn't usually allocated to a specific item for a specific child

Areyou sure you're using the right term?

It often is, especially where relatively few children qualify for PP. It can be used to pay for anything to benefit that child, from intervention (1:1 'catch up' lesson support from a TA) to peripatetic music lessons and school trips. It's to ensure that pupils don't miss out on learning opportunities as a result of their less fortunate financial circumstances. In schools where a large number of children qualify for PP, then the money is often pooled to pay for resources (either staff or physical things) that benefit the whole school community.

because one parent may have a significantly lower income than the other?

The trip cost has already been lowered due to one of them having a low income.
It would also then only be half of the cost as they don’t live together.

@ffscovid
Ofsted never want to see pp spent on all children if the PP children are under achieving. The money is quite clearly for them and schools need to evaluate the needs of each child. There are, of course, PP children who are achieving well and making excellent progress. In that case, the pp money is sensibly used for enrichment. I’m assuming that’s what is happening here but if the child was not making good progress and was struggling academically, I might find the decision to part fund a non essential trip a bit mystifying.

Pupil Premium is awarded because of the low earnings of the resident parent.
It's their discount.
Total cost should be split fractionally by how maintenance is worked out. 2/7ths 5/14ths etc. Discount applies to RP

If RP has them 5/7 then
450 total cost
RP pays 5/7 £320 - £150 =£171
Other parent pays 2/7 £129

You're really not on much money if you get PP
Your child may be eligible for Pupil Premium if you receive any of the following:
Income Support
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
income-related Employment and Support Allowance
support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
the guaranteed element of Pension Credit
Child Tax Credit (provided you’re not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)
Working Tax Credit run-on – paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit
Universal Credit – if you apply on or after 1 April 2018 your household income must be less than £7,400 a year (after tax and not including any benefits you get)

Well if one parent is struggling financially and the other one comfortable, then I'd expect the more comfortable parent to pay a bigger proportion (or all of it if they're really comfortably well off). If they both have similar incomes then they should each pay an equal share. The fact that there is a discount suggests that the RP is on a very low income, so the discount should make up part of their share. Unless both parents are on very low incomes, then it would have to be split equally if they can afford it?